Setting the scene: The research context

Historically, women have been underrepresented in the fields of Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine (STEMM) within higher education. Within Australian higher education settings, women comprise approximately 50% of PhD university graduates and early-career academics, however, only occupy 20% of senior academic positions, evidencing the ‘sticky floor effect’ [Science in Australia Gender Equity (SAGE) 2020a]. This can be compounded by the influence of the academic context, gendered identities, governance, and power differentials, on the roles, experiences, and expectations of women in academia. While the representation of women in higher education, and more broadly the work force, has improved significantly over time, the representation of women in STEMM fields is still a prevalent issue that has received increasing attention among researchers and policymakers (Nash and Moore 2019; SAGE 2020b). Women academics have experienced difficulties in progressing into higher positions in academia because of the questioning of their qualifications, as well as the limiting of their opportunities to progress (Brown et al. 2020; Johnson et al. 2014; Khwaja et al. 2017).

The ‘sticky floor effect’ resembles women’s academic experiences, as the lack of opportunities for women in senior leadership positions lessens the likelihood for other women academics to progress into these roles (Brown et al. 2020; Johnson et al. 2014; Khwaja et al. 2017). Great difficulties are had when women attempt to progress in academia compared to men, and these difficulties are exacerbated within disciplines that are considered as male-dominated (Brown et al. 2020; Johnson et al. 2014; Khwaja et al. 2017). While to some extent, the representation of women academics has improved, where women represent the majority in some fields in STEMM statistically, the tipping point still exists, where there are many gendered inequities that still exist between men and women in many key STEMM industries, institutions, and occupations (e.g., working in higher education; SAGE 2020b). This can not only impact the representation and progression of women in academia, but also, impact how women identify within the academic, and personal, context.

Conceptualizing the early-career stage

In academia, early-career can be typically defined as the period between an academic starting their Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) experience, and 5 years post-PhD completion (Australian Council of Learned Academies 2012). This period has been described as particularly challenging and demanding for academics (Caretta et al. 2018), suggested as the “academic treadmill” (Edwards et al. 2010, p. 10), the “tenuous periphery” (Kimber 2003, p. 41), and the “frustrating career stage” (Gottschalk and Mceachern 2010, p. 48) where “academic aspirants” want to make their mark in academia (May et al. 2011, p. 193). The early-career stage can comprise of having to balance multiple responsibilities with higher teaching workloads, low pay, a lack of job security, limited research time, last minute appointments, minimal professional development opportunities, and experiencing marginalization in decision-making (Bosanquet et al. 2017; Caretta et al. 2018), which have all been suggested as adding to the challenging experience mentioned above.

A multitude of measurable outputs and skills, including publications, international collaborations, generating income through the acquisition of external grants, and teaching excellence can further complicate the early-career experience, as well as having to prove that an academic can do these things at pace, and in combination (Bosanquet et al. 2017; Caretta et al. 2018). This is expected in order to demonstrate employability within a fiercely competitive academy, reflecting a nature of always being ready to take on any task, and for being ‘every kind of academic’ to everyone in the institution (McKay and Monk 2017). As such, early-career academics face a lack of options, and are forced to collude and compete, both with, and in, a system that disadvantages them, as well as setting them up against their more experienced academic peers (McKay and Monk 2017).

Positioning of the early-career academic

The term ‘early-career academic’ is used by higher education institutions, and the extant literature base, as it reflects the full scope of roles and responsibilities that an academic at this career stage engages in daily (Bosanquet et al. 2017). The becoming of, and being, an early-career academic is a dynamic journey which is marked by movement of some form, whether that be through learning, adapting, and adopting new skills and capacities, being ‘thrown in the deep end’ of academic responsibilities, beginning to conceptualize an identity as an academic, promotion and/or receiving tenure, and/or moving to other roles and/or institutions (Clegg 2008). The interplay of these individual and institutional dynamics changes over time, which can influence how an academic experiences success, setbacks, choices, and identity conceptualization within academia (Blackburn 2017; Weedon 1997). As such, the positioning of early-career academics within academia is embedded within tensions and paradoxes between the commitment to the institution, the organizational structure, broader systemic gendered roles, and norms that manifest over time, as well as a desire to conceptualise what it means to be an academic within the current higher education setting (Philipsen et al. 2017). These tensions can form the basis for conflicts in conceptualizing academic identity, whereby academics may desire to change the current state of being within the institution, while experiencing conflicts in their commitment to the same institution (Göktürka and Tülüba 2021).

Defining the academic identity

Academic identity refers to an individual’s understanding of who they are, within their academic institution (Pick et al. 2017). One’s academic identity can influence their self-perception, as well as their perspective of how others see them (Drame et al. 2012). How an academic identifies in relation to both the personal and professional domains has been suggested to have a significant impact (for better or worse) on an academic’s work productivity and performance (Drame et al. 2012; Knights and Clarke 2014; Walsh 2015). The conceptualization of academic identities can be influenced by many elements, including working roles and responsibilities, the success, and achievements of the academic, the perceived power and voice that an academic possesses, and the pressure to be the ideal worker within the academic setting (Akin-Little et al. 2004; Baker 1999). Previous literature has reported on the struggles and complexities of conceptualizing an academic identity (particularly by those within minority groups, such as women, and at the early-career stage; Kachchaf et al. 2015; Knights and Clarke 2014; Rainnie et al. 2013), but does not consider how the notions of self, identity, and institutional governance for women in higher education interact. Additionally, there is a lack of appreciation that knowledge can be socially constructed, which can influence how different perspectives can shape institutional practices and ways of being for women academics at different career stages. The identities of academics, and the forming of them, can be complex, and consist of various components and elements that stem from various sources (Marginson 2007).

Identity as a construct

The identities of academics, and the forming of them, can be complex, and consist of various components and elements that stem from various sources (Marginson 2007). Some scholars propose identity as a construct that is fluid, and continually shifts and changes over time (Bennett et al. 2016). Clegg (2008) proposed that academic identity is a part of the lived complexity of an academic and their ways of being, where the shifting construct exists alongside other components of how individuals understand themselves and their positioning in the world. It has been considered especially important that detailed attention is paid to how changes are experienced in higher education, and how this can influence an academic’s identity (Clegg 2008). Here, we can consider the academic identity in part as the understandings and expressions of one’s beliefs, values, dispositions, and actions within higher education (Pick et al. 2017), as well as their ways of being and doing in their many roles and responsibilities (Drame et al. 2012; Knights and Clarke 2014; Walsh 2015). Additionally, it is important to consider this shift acknowledged by Clegg (2008), in combination with the understanding of identity being influenced by interactions with significant others (e.g., peers, colleagues, family, friends; Adam 2012) and social movements (e.g., neoliberalism) that occur in different ways, degrees, and contexts (Peck et al. 2018). Challenges are presented in how academic identities are constructed and conceptualized, as academics experience further pressures in their work roles that are qualitatively different than before (Galton and MacBeath 2008). As such, the forming of academic identity can be viewed as complex with multiple competing influences that change and shift over time, which differ for each individual academic (Bennett et al. 2016; Clegg 2008).

Other authors have differed in their conceptualization of identity as fluid, proposing the construct as fixed and concrete (Alwazzan and Rees 2016; Marginson 2007; Yaacoub 2011). Support for this perspective has been observed within higher education institutions, where academics are viewed as more homogenous, rather than heterogenous, in relation to their identities, and as such, are identified as a part of their social group (Alwazzan and Rees 2016). Under this conceptualization, identity is viewed as a distinctive, concrete set of characteristics that belongs to either an individual, or shared by all individuals of that particular social category (Knights and Clarke 2014). This view emphasises a degree of homogeneity within a social group, where in a specific context at a particular point in time, individuals are compared to a degree of sameness or oneness with others (Yaacoub 2011).

Whether the conceptualization of identity is understood as concrete, or fluid, scholars have acknowledged a shift, where identities have adapted to the consequential, societal institutional changes that have occurred over time in academia, which has resulted in numerous, different responses from academics (Clegg 2008). We align with the conceptualization that identities can engender change through the constant processes of construction, deconstruction, and reconstruction (Berry 2008). Identities can change through the periods of shifting, institutional change in academia, which then can reflect on the changes observed in society (Adam 2012). We propose that it is important to pay close attention, and acknowledge how these changes can influence on an academic’s way of knowing and being, which can be important to the conceptualization of the academic identity.

Women academics, identity, and power in STEMM

The experience of working in academia, and conceptualizing identity, is more complicated for women who work within the fields of STEMM (Westring et al. 2016). More opportunities have been afforded to white men historically, based on experiencing more privilege within STEMM fields, than individuals with different identities (Eagly and Miller 2016; Stark et al. 2001). An overrepresentation, in relation to the male gender, white students, and those of Asian ethnicities, has been acknowledged in STEMM (Fairweather 2009), with the field described as unwelcoming and cold to women (Stark et al. 2001). The embedded nature of bureaucratic and patriarchal discourse in academia (reflective of masculinized norms) has been proposed as one of the reasons why white men, rather than women and other minority groups, are valued in the setting (Parsons and Priola 2013). Furthermore, the underlying social, economic, and political complexities that construct and shape the experiences of minoritized groups has not yet been attended to by the beliefs, attitudes, and solutions that are valued in academia (Butler 2002, 2004; Webster 2010). Such solutions have thus far been contested and have relied on a problem definition which problematises the individual, and not the competitive, male-normative system, as needing to change (Bomert and Leinfellner 2017).

Barriers to women’s participation in academia can impact how they identify within the setting, with many barriers suggested in the literature base that are either structurally, or individually oriented (Fagan and Teasdale 2021; Khan and Siriwardhane 2021). For example, difficulties with accessing mentoring networks and role models (Fagan and Teasdale 2021; Nash and Moore 2019), experiencing the impact of implicit biases, harassment, and discrimination (O’Connell and McKinnon 2021), experiencing gender stereotyping (Nash et al. 2021), underrepresentation (Howe-Walsh and Turnbull 2016), navigating masculinist organizational cultures (Khan and Siriwardhane 2021), gendered divisions of faculty labour (Vohlidalova 2021), and difficulties with balancing caring and academic responsibilities (Bozzon et al. 2017) have all been suggested as barriers to women’s academic experience and conceptualization of identity. Further, these barriers can accumulate in their effects over time, reflecting an experience known as the glass ceiling, whereby women academics are hindered by the deeply routine, embedded organizational practices and policies of academia (Arredondo et al. 2022). These practices are influenced by patriarchal, gendered discourses that view male academics as the majority in STEMM, and how to work and identify within these fields is bound within men and masculinity (Gaudet et al. 2022). The barriers for women in STEMM perpetuate a chilly climate, which can be characterized by a lack of encouragement and recognition for women, a subtle process of devaluation, and resultant lower levels of confidence (Eslen-Ziya and Yildirim 2022). This climate presents difficulties in identifying as an academic within STEMM for women, who struggle to feel as if they belong, which can be emphasized by the routine, everyday practices that act as significant normalizing and invisible barriers for them (Arredondo et al. 2022).

Significant normalizing practices and knowledge which act upon women academics can be exercised by the nature of power and knowledge. Foucault conceptualized power as a network or constructed web that enables certain knowledge(s) to be produced and known (Burchell et al. 1991; Foucault 1980). Power can have an immense impact through its manifestation and application, by “reaching into the very grain of individuals, touching their bodies and inserting itself into actions and attitudes, discourses, learning processes and everyday lives” (Foucault 1980, p. 30). Through this network, capillary-like structure, power is conceptualized to be neither here nor there, but that it circulates in a net-like manner via social relations (Burchell et al. 1991). As such, we are eternally embroiled within power relations that work to operate on us (Rabinow 1984). Further to this, power can be conceptualized as a productive concept, influenced by the archaeology and genealogy of sociohistorical processes (Foucault 1972). For these reasons provided above, Foucault (1988) argued that rather than focussing on power as a possessor, we should concentrate on the application of power. Within the research, our aim is to focus on exploring the discourses and subject positions of early-career women in academia—these constructions will be regarded as produced through the effects of power and how this can shape academic identity formation. Women can not only be controlled by power, but also, producers of knowledge and power, and our research aims to explore, through the discourses and subject positions, how power and knowledge influence academic identity conceptualization.

Power can be both productive and restrictive (Foucault 1977). First, power can be productive; being used by individuals in terms of how knowledge is constructed and perpetuated, as well as how the self and others are defined (Foucault 1977). For example, a woman in academia who is constructing her academic identity is viewed as producing, but also seeking knowledge (e.g., attempting to define her identity, but also, seek out new ways of being), which in turn, allows her to construct her identity as an agentic woman. Over time, specific truths and those who have been constructed as truth tellers (e.g., government, academics in higher positions of power, neoliberal knowledge) become privileged compared to others. As such, these truths, and truth tellers, become social norms and experts. Here, individuals within a context use specific forms of knowledge from dominant discourses in ways to claim authority and presence, and additionally, to exclude other individuals with other discursive framings or ways of being (Foucault 1972). In this way, specific discourses and institutions become, over time through production, more powerful than others. Additionally, power can also have a paradoxical effect; constraining what is possible to know in specific situations (Foucault 1977). As such, power can be conceptualized as a facet of our actions that may work to influence others, what they know, and to also impact their future actions (Rabinow 1984). Further, conceptualising power as a mode of action suggests that power may not always act in a direct and immediate manner on others, rather, it can act upon their actions (Burchell et al. 1991). This is viewed as an action upon an action, on existing actions, or on those which could arise at a later time (Burchell et al. 1991).

Research contributions

Progress is still considered limited, despite broader efforts in STEMM fields well-intentioned to provide support and opportunities for women and other minority groups (Blackburn 2017). Further supporting this conclusion is the premise that women academics’ current values and experiences are not fully accounted for (Fairweather 2009). Higher degrees and senior workplace positions have less women occupying them, despite the increasing number of women in STEMM undergraduate pathways (Eagly and Miller 2016; O’Brien and Hapgood 2012). This is commonly referred to as the ‘leaky pipeline’ with many interventions and research efforts focusing on the ways in which the ‘leaks’ can be repaired in the pipeline to allow for women to stay in STEMM-related positions, as well as progress in academia (Gasser and Shaffer 2014). While women academics have been making significant progress in the fields of STEMM in academia (and in some cases, even outperforming male academics; SAGE 2020a), it is imperative for academics, administrators, and policymakers to have a better understanding of the inequities between men and women in academia, particularly in STEMM, and how this influences their academic experiences and identities.

Little is known about how self, identity, and governance shape women’s experiences, as well as institutional practices and ways of being in academia. For example, there is a paucity of research on the interplay of broader systemic and contextual issues (e.g., maintaining a work/life balance, neoliberal and/or hegemonic settings), that may inform the academic identities of women within higher education, particularly surrounding power, and institutional governance. Our research explores the notions of self, identity, and institutional governance for women in higher education, appreciating that knowledge can be socially constructed, which can influence how different perspectives can shape institutional practices and ways of being.

Some studies also tend to employ analyses with a limited scope to capture the complexities of this setting, and women’s experiences and identities within it (e.g., thematic analyses, quantitative studies). Our proposed research seeks to extend on the extant literature by employing a Foucauldian perspective, which allows for the interpretation of experiences to reveal the multiplicity of identities and subjectivities for women in academia, how discourse can shape the ways of being of women in academia, as well as the complex, competing values that influence individuals (Chan 2005). Given this, how women engage in the roles and expectations of the Australian public higher education setting is beneficial to explore, in terms of the powerful structures that position the women academics in certain ways, over others, as well as making them engage in certain tasks. By asking questions about academic experiences and the identity conceptualization of women, we can start to explore their discourses and subject positions, in relation to what they do, how they may think or feel about academia, and the conditions under which these experiences take place. Knowledge systems constructed in academia influence the questions that are asked and the ways in which research is conducted (Ward and Wolf-Wendel 2016), where certain knowledge and ways of being are viewed as common sense. Findings from the research ultimately aim to illuminate what is common sense within a context through what is said by participants (Foucault 1988). Critiquing the dominant social order may assist with identifying ways to evaluate and change existing gender equity policies, research funding, conditions of employment, salaries/pay, sick leave, educational choices, and career pathways within the Australian public higher education context, as well as further support gender equity and fairness within the workplace. We focused on developing an understanding of how women academics discussed their experiences within academia, the many identities that they conceptualized, and how the discourses, used by the women, as well as other academics, provided specific subject positions and/or opportunities to conceptualize identity within the academic context. As such, by adopting a social constructionist, critical, Foucauldian perspective, this study aimed to explore the conceptualization of academic identities for women in early-career stage academia, and to address the overarching research questions, ‘How do early-career women within STEMM in the academic setting conceptualise their academic identities? What subject positions are made available in the discourse?’.

Method

Design

We employed an exploratory, qualitative design (Creswell 2009) in the study to explore how women conceptualize their academic identities and experiences in the early-career stage in STEMM. Face-to-face, one-on-one semi-structured interviews were conducted to allow the women to share their stories. Our social constructionist epistemological position, and critical psychology theoretical perspective are both aligned with a Foucauldian philosophy and assisted in guiding our understanding of the research design, analysis, and discussion of the findings. Additionally, as Foucauldian informed criticalists, we worked to identify and attend to the ways in which power, discourse, and ways of being operate, and how this influenced the conceptualization of early-career women’s academic identities.

Researcher positionality

We acknowledge that our positioning and experiences within Australian public higher education have informed how we have approached and designed this research study. As such, it was crucial that we endeavoured to maintain a reflexive position, and to locate ourselves within the research process. It was important to be aware of our location within the research, as well as the influence of our subjective positioning. This was considered as an ongoing process. The research team consisted of four academics. Two members of the team currently work in academia, and two have previous experience working in academia. We acknowledge that academia is a setting that consists of contextual systemic inequities. We come from the discipline of psychology, and all share an interest in exploring gendered experiences through research. Matthew identifies as an Anglo-Australian, Cis-gender male, within the LGBTIQA + identity, and an early-career academic in a teaching and research role. Peta identifies as a White-Australian coloniser, Cis-gender female, mother and carer with invisible chronic illness, middle-career academic in a tenured teaching-research role. Lynne identifies of Celtic heritage, a Cis-gender female citizen of Australia and New Zealand, and a retired later-career academic. Emily identifies as a Cis-gender female, Anglo-Australian, early-career academic in an adjunct role, as well as a practising psychologist.

My identity as the lead author within the research prompted a number of discussions within the supervisory team, as well as the participants during the interviewing process. First, my identity as a white male within academia has had an influence on the research process, design decisions, and my interpretation of findings. As a White cis-gendered male academic, I have been often asked about my ability and capacity to conduct credible, safe, and meaningful research with women. The questions asked of me centre on my experiences in academia as a man, compared to women’s experiences, my ability to be able to understand, or at least represent, women’s academic experiences, as well as ways that I, as a man, can assist in mitigating the prejudices, discriminatory behaviours, and marginalization of women that occurs in academia daily. I am continually curious as to how my gender continually acts as a point of contention in my role as an academic, and as a qualitative researcher. Identifying as a cis-gender male appears to challenge the credibility of my work surrounding women’s academic identities and experiences automatically and inherently. I do agree that all researchers must engage in reflexivity surrounding their positionality within qualitative projects, as well as in broader power structures. With a feminist perspective guiding the research through the use of critical psychology, and social constructionism, I made sure to engage in journaling, and reflexive discussion, to ensure my gender identity did not influence the research. For example, some of the participants indicated that they were uncomfortable with a male researcher conducting the research. I ensured that I managed this tension at the beginning of the interview by discussing my role in the research, my reasoning for conducting the research, as well as allowing participants to ask me about my intentions surrounding the research.

Second, my identity sits within the LGBTIQA + identity; as such, as the lead author, I undertook the research with a sensitivity to the nuances of falling under a diverse set of identities less represented in the dominant, hegemonic setting. Third, the research team identify under the most common ethnic identity in academia, identifying as white. Predominantly, the women in my study also identified ethnically as white. We can recognize that our recruitment process has been a by-product of the influence of the institutionalization of colonization, specifically, focusing on the white experience, and influenced by the roots of academia emerging from “a patriarchal, Eurocentric society, complicit with multiple forms of oppression of women, sometimes men, children, minorities, and Indigenous peoples” (Moreton-Robinson 2011, p. 159). There is a risk within our research that the experiences of individuals who do not identify as white could be distorted or excluded from what has been considered as privileged experience and knowledge. Based on this, it is important for us to recognize that the research may perpetuate these embedded practices, as well as being conscious of just how entrenched and ongoing the colonial process is within the education context. While we cannot change who has participated in my research, going forward, we aim to raise awareness of just how implicated the higher education setting can be (based on the normalization of colonial ideologies) in colonial practices, based on the education of individuals through pedagogical and research practices (Moreton-Robinson 2011).

As the lead author, I recognize that my positionality represents some forms of diversity, however, replicates some of the most common identities in academia, those being, white, cis-gender, and male. Additionally, within our research, we can recognise that by adopting the role of the researcher (and with my various facets of identity accompanying this role), we are in some cases speaking for the women that we have recruited in this study, and that they have placed comfort and trust in us to share their stories. As such, it was important to consider the particular privileges attached to our identities, to ensure that we attended to this influence and acknowledged our privilege in conducting this research. Additionally, as advocates for gender equity, and as feminists, managing our influence on this research in an area that is considered to be masculinized in nature was of importance. It was important to consider the particular privileges attached to our identities, to ensure that we attended to this influence and acknowledged our privilege in conducting this research. Throughout the study, we used a pragmatic approach to assist in dealing with these tensions and found engaging in reflexivity to be a core strategy to maintain rigour and authenticity within the findings. We acknowledge the importance of reflexive practice to explore, and be aware of, how our positioning influences the research process, design decisions, and interpretation of findings.

Participants

Early-career women who were currently completing their PhD, to being 5 years post completion of this degree were recruited for interviewsFootnote 1 (Australian Council of Learned Academies 2012). These women occupied a diverse range of academic roles (e.g., Sessional Academics, Teaching Academics, Research Academics, and Teaching and Research Academics) within STEMM faculties in Australian State and Territory public universities. The diverse focus of academic roles for these women allowed for an exploration of the diversity of roles, responsibilities, and identities within academia. The aim of recruiting early-career women academics from public higher education settings in Australia was to explore how these women navigate their introduction into academia, and to explore how these women conceptualized their future career in higher education.

There was a two-stage sampling process. First, Australian public higher education institutions were selected if they were listed on the Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings, which judges universities on components such as their research record, teaching standards, application, and integration of knowledge to the literature base, and international perspectives (THE World University Rankings 2018). This ranking system is globally recognized, and subjected to independent scrutiny, which is trusted by students, academics, industries, university leaders, and the Australian government (THE World University Rankings 2018). Private universities or those governed in a manner that differs from public institutions were removed from this list.

Second, we adopted a purposive and targeted sampling approach, navigating the staff directories of the listed universities, as a part of the broader research project targeting women across the early-, middle-, and later-career stages, and contacting 168 women working in STEMM fields via email to invite them to participate in the research. Gender was determined based on how each of the academics self-identified on their public staff profile. Of the 168 women contacted, 90 women across the three career stages acknowledged their interest (via email response) to be interviewed, 30 of which identified as being in the early-career stage. An effort was made to recruit at least one early-career woman from a public higher education institution in each State and Territory within Australia. These women had to self-identify as being sufficiently immersed in the Australian public higher education context to allow them to provide commentary on the topic. This was to ensure that the sample was chosen purposefully from Australian public higher education institutions, equally from each state and territory in Australia, that the participants were studied intensively, the recruitment was sequential, and conceptual, and that the aforementioned rationale for selection was evident. The final sample of early-career women academics consisted of 17 participants, with ages ranging from 27 to 62 years (M = 37.3, SD = 10.2). Data collection ceased after these interviews, when information power (Malterud et al. 2016) was deemed adequate based on the specificity of the sample, narrow study aim, and quality of the dialogue. Table 1 outlines the demographic information collected from these participants.

Table 1 Early-career women academics demographic information
Full size table

Materials

A semi-structured interview guide was developed for interviewing the early-career women academics, with the aim of asking questions based on the research objectives, the extant literature base, and findings from previous phases of the research. The use of a semi-structured interview in this research allowed for the discovery of rich, in-depth concepts and discourses, therefore permitting the participants’ positionings to be co-constructed by us as the research team (Foucault 1972; Ryan et al. 2007). The format of the guide allowed for us to ask our expected questions, but also provided the opportunity to probe/prompt on points of interest (Morrow 2005). Additionally, we were able to establish an understanding of the participants’ social context by asking novel questions, as well as building rapport with the participants, noted as particularly important within the interviewing process (Ravenek and Rudman 2013). Questions within the interview guide related to entry into academia, allowing for participants to reflect on certain experiences, and goals they wanted to achieve. An example question was, “What do you think are some of the experiences of women in the early-career stage of academia?”. The design of the guide allowed for the interviews conducted to be approximately 45–60 min in duration.

A demographic questionnaire was also developed to collect demographic information about the participants, including the participants’ age, sex, current institution, current faculty, current position, diverse identification, and current household composition. Participants were asked to complete the demographic questionnaire either before (emailed to online participants) or after the interview (for face-to-face participants). Participants were also provided the option to return the form blank if they did not wish to provide this information. The demographic questionnaire responses were not linked to participants’ interview transcripts. All participants completed the demographic questionnaire.

Procedure

After receiving ethical approval from the Curtin University Human Research Ethics Committee (approval number HRE2018-0606), individuals were invited to participate with flyers and recruitment emails sent after navigating staff directories, word-of-mouth through academic staff, and snowball sampling. Individuals who expressed their interest in the research were provided with a participant information sheet and consent form via email. These documents outlined the focus of the study, the participants’ rights, and how the data collected would be used. Participants were given the option of either face-to-face, online, or telephone interviews to be conducted, and a mutually convenient time, location, and platform agreed upon.

Consent was obtained from the participants verbally and formally, with their consent form signed face-to-face, or returned via email. The participants were informed that any information collected as a part of the research would remain confidential (and only accessible by the research team), and that their identity would be protected within the final write-up. Following informed consent, the interview commenced and were approximately one hour in duration but ranged from 30 to 90 min in length. At the end of the interview, participants were provided with a verbal summary of their interview, asked if they wished to add any additional information to what had been shared, and invited to complete/provide us with their de-identified demographic questionnaire.

Upon completion of each interview, the audio recordings were transcribed verbatim, with any identifying information being removed and replaced with either a pseudonym, or a placeholder (e.g., [participant’s name]). The transcripts were printed and analyzed via the paper/pen method, using Foucauldian Discourse Analysis (FDA). Interviewing, transcription, and analysis was completed as an iterative process, meaning we moved through the phases repeatedly as we needed to, coming closer to the end process through continual engagement. After all interviews had been collected and analyzed, participants were invited to ‘opt-in’ to engage in member checking, where a summary was sent of the key collated messages of the research, to allow the early-career women academics to provide feedback on the fairness and accuracy of the interpretations, as well as allow for the including of additional reflections to the research.

Data analysis

Semi-structured interview data were analyzed using FDA. The analysis was considered appropriate as it examines different forms of power and knowledge, specifically exploring how these constructs influence the use of discursive constructions, discourse, subject positions, subjectivities, and ways of being (Foucault 1972). FDA was useful as it allowed for us to explore and discover the participants’ truths through the narratives they shared, to identify the particular roles and positions they occupied, and how they constructed specific phenomena within their experiences using discursive resources (Foucault 1972). From a Foucauldian perspective, narratives, ways of being, and positionings are communicated through discourses, which are sets of statements that may constrain or facilitate certain ways of speaking, thinking, writing, and being (Burr 2015). Certain discourses can be privileged over others and can be legitimised through power relations and social structures (Foucault 1972). Within our research, FDA specifically allowed for us to explore how the participants relayed their academic experiences, the narratives engaged in to articulate how they navigated the academic setting, and how their positioning within the academic context influenced the forming of their academic identities. It was speculated that by using this analysis, we could uncover how the power and knowledge present within the academic setting position the participants in ways of being.

We adopted the six-step process for FDA outlined by Willig (2008). Before following Willig’s (2008) steps, it was important to familiarise ourselves with the data set. As such, transcripts were first read and re-read whereby we noted down any initial ideas to assist with our understanding of the data in relation to the research question. We then began to employ Willig’s (2008) steps. In step one (Discursive Constructions), we searched the data for the different ways in which the participants constructed the discursive object of academic identity, as well as academic experience. The discursive constructions illustrated how the participants discussed the topic of the research question, included both explicit and implicit references to the topic, as well as describing any particular issues identified within the talk. In step two (Discourses), we located each discursive construction within wider societal discourses which served to help us understand why women discussed their academic identities and experiences in this way. This step allowed for us to identify the particular discursive lenses that the participants were using to capture their sentiments. In step three (Action Orientation), we explored what could be gained from constructing the academic identity and experience in these ways, within the wider discourses, and further questioned the function and benefit of the constructions. In step four (Positionings), we explored the subject positions, or ways of being, that were made available by the discursive constructions and wider discourses. In step five (Practice), we considered the possibilities for action that were available to early-career women academics who identified with the particular subject positions explored. In step six (Subjectivity), we extended on this commentary to understand how the subject positions identified impacted participants’ academic experiences and constructions of their academic identities. We chose to present the findings according to the identified subject positions to address the research aims and focus (i.e., exploring identities, which were pragmatically able to be conceptualised as subject positions).

Findings

Three identities (emerging as subject positions) were identified in the FDA for early-career women academics—(1) The Compliant Woman, (2) The Strategic Woman, and (3) the Rebellious Woman. We consider and provide commentary on how these identities were made available to the participants through discursive constructions and the role of discourse, as well as explore how they function within Australian public higher education. Additionally, each specific subject position is supported by verbatim quotes from participants’ interview transcripts. After each quote, a number has been provided in parentheses. The number represents the participant within the sample of early-career women academics. Within the early-career stage, it is important to recognise that the women academics do not occupy just one position, and that the subjectivities provided reflect what is made available, or denied, to them throughout their academic experience. As such, the participants can identify across the different subject positions offered in the findings.

The Compliant Woman

The Compliant Woman subject position is an early-career woman academic who consolidates their positioning within academia by following the rules of the institution and meeting the expectations of higher education. Within the data set, this was illustrated through the women navigating the academic system in a prescribed manner and following the set norms and ways of being that have been traditionally embedded within the setting. For example, when the participants discussed why they followed the rules of the institution, and complied with the conditions set in academia, they drew their explanation from a patriarchal discourse. Drawing from the patriarchal discourse, participants expressed how there have been a set of normative standards embedded within the academic culture that were set by, and favour, most men within academia, which act to systematically disadvantage other groups of individuals: “The rules and requirements of academia are set to advantage the lifestyles of men. They have less commitments and expectations than women do.” [01] and “…all the top researchers, the head of the school, who academia advantages and that kind of stuff, it’s men, you know (laughs). We always think about academia as men as well.” [02]. Additionally, when discussing the male-dominated nature of the academic context, participants drew from a political discourse, expressing how higher education has drawn on political technologies in terms of how knowledge and ways of being are obtained and constructed:

I just feel like academia is way more political than almost any other thing. Like, because knowledge in itself is so political and then the institutions are so political as well and, and how they governed, and uh, so there’s all, it just always feels like there’s some sort of standard that you are being evaluated against [02].

Drawing on the political discourse allowed the women to identify tensions in how they were governed and evaluated against certain standards, expectations, and knowledge within academia. Being governed and evaluated in this manner illustrated to the early-career women academics that certain ways of being are valued and legitimised, which must be complied to. Compliance to the patriarchal standards disadvantaged the early-career women academics, which made it difficult for them to progress, as well as being difficult for new standards and practices to be constructed. For some participants, accepting the standards that disadvantaged them and their academic progression was acknowledged as difficult. Experiencing this difficulty was expressed as an accepted experience, as complying to the normative way of being was viewed as a way of surviving academia during the early-career stage: “I think there’s just like systemic inequality that trickles down in everything and impacts on women’s opportunities. It disadvantages women, but women feel they have to accept it to survive in academia.” [02]. As such, some participants identified that to consolidate their positioning in academia, you need to play it safe by accepting the way that things are, which can impact the forming of their identity and experience in academia.

There were complexities evident when exploring how The Compliant Woman navigated academia, specifically in terms of how her identity and practice can be constructed by other academics. By being positioned as a Compliant Woman, the participants were discursively constructed as either a ‘good’, or a ‘bad’ academic. When complying to the standards and pre-existing conditions of academia, the practices of the early-career women academics were discursively constructed as ‘good’ in terms of consolidating their positioning, as well as ensuring they would not be questioned or viewed as a threat by other academics: “You’re a good academic because you comply [to the rules of the institution]. If you comply, you’re not going to be questioned.” [03]. Conversely, with the obeying of academic standards and ways of being, early-career women academics were also discursively constructed as ‘bad’ academics. This construction was based not only on the direct and indirect perpetuation of academic practices that served to disadvantage women, but also, how following the rules can be viewed as a fraudulent practice: “Women who comply to survive, like, I get it, I’ve done it, but it makes me feel fraudulent. A bad academic because I’m not doing anything to change how things are.” [04]. Here, the quotes illustrate that no matter the construction of ‘good’ or ‘bad’, the complying to academic standards reflects an anguished position, and an obedient subjectivity, where feeling fraudulent in academia is a direct consequence of complying and being obedient to survive the academic setting. We propose here that the early-career women academics are acknowledging a practice within academia whereby entry into the setting is conditional based on compliance; while it feels unpleasant, it is an accepted and agreed upon norm that everyone must experience. A ‘good’ academic appears to challenge the notion that each academic should experience complying to the rules that disadvantage them, but according to the subjectivity here, being an early-career woman academic compounds the experience with tensions to challenging the academic way of being. While the early-career woman academic may be able to assimilate into academia by complying with the standards set, the way that she experiences the setting appears conditional and prescriptive, which can impact how she views herself as an academic.

Additionally, when early-career women were positioned as The Compliant Woman, nuance surrounding gender, masculinity, and femininity were expressed. Participants acknowledged how the academic identity was linked to specific traits attributed to stereotypical gendered qualities and behaviours. Drawing on a heteronormative discourse, the participants offered specific ideas surrounding the construction of gender in academia:

Not all women want this, but women are expected to prescribe to a feminine academic identity. We are expected to be caring, nurturing, accepting, compliant, and maternal. We have to look after students, care for our colleagues, whereas men, it’s like they have to be masculine, which they may not want either. Men are viewed as assertive, dominant academics who like to do whatever they want [05].

Within these ideas, the masculine academic was viewed by participants as an individual who was “…not compliant” [02], rather, they were “assertive, active, combative” [06], and at times, “aggressive” [07] in their way of navigating academia. In contrast, the feminine academic was viewed as “…compliant in their behaviour” [02], as well as being “passive, mild, content, and accepting” [06] throughout their navigation of academia. The operation of the heteronormative, gendered discourse was complex, whereby early-career women academics could be positioned within a masculine or feminine role, but there were clear consequences dependent on how they were positioned:

I think, um, in a sense historically and systemically in academia, um, the gaze gets cast on women and their identities. Women have to be compliant and candid, otherwise, they are viewed negatively. Um, you know, it’s like that classic thing, like, oh, a woman who isn’t compliant, but is candid is a bitch, but a guy who is candid is like, assertive or something like that [02].

The discursive construction of gender as a dichotomy when considering compliance, as well as the masculine and feminine identity, was evident through the participants’ sentiments. With the pressure to comply and adopt the normative standards of academia set by the hegemony, early-career women academics expressed feeling like a woman within a man’s world, whereby gender is positioned and constructed as one-dimensional: “The number of men in my building, it’s very clear that academia is a man’s world. I feel it in every meeting I attend, I’m one of about five women in a room of 30 academics.” [02] and “It’s like that song, it’s just a man’s, man’s, man’s world, but relate that to academia. To avoid rocking the boat, you do as you’re told, as a woman in academia.” [06]. As such, to make it in the academic world, participants felt pressured to adopt a feminine identity to feel safe and secure in their position.

In being a compliant early-career woman academic, the primary course of action is to play the game by complying to the above gendered stereotypes and roles, which acts to consolidate their positioning within academia. By complying, the early-career women academics are working to become a part of, and to identify with, the academic setting, in an assimilative manner that is prescribed by the hegemony in accordance with their gender: “I feel like I’m playing the game in a sense. In reality, I hate the way I’m treated, but I want to be a part of academia, so you do what you have to do.” [08]. Paradoxically, by safely embedding the self into the academic system, the early-career woman academic assimilates into a setting that is dominated and controlled by the dominant group. By drawing on a survival discourse, the participants expressed how assimilating into this context, and following the rules and gendered ways of being, was a way that they remained within the setting, without being viewed as a threat to challenging the academic way of being and doing. Additionally, drawing on a risk discourse was evident in that questioning the dominant practices was considered a risk, and by limiting the questioning of how things exist in academia, the participants felt safe, and that their positioning was solidified: “I feel safe. I don’t question a thing. I do what I’m told. If I don’t, I risk everything” [09]. Overall, the early-career women academics acknowledged that questioning normative practices was a risky behaviour for them in relation to their academic progression, so to reduce this risk, they complied to reduce the likelihood of dissent or conflict in academia.

The early-career women academics alluded to how they perceived neoliberal academia was meant to be run. Participants acknowledged their explanation of this perceived way of being using both neoliberal/economic discourse, expressing that compliance to this practice would be more beneficial: “You can see how the neoliberal system was supposed to benefit all academics. It was meant to allow for a system that was supportive, efficient, engaging, collaborative…” [01]. Specifically, the neoliberal/economic discourse here outlined how participants felt academia was originally governed to allow for levels of flexibility, productivity, and cooperation that benefitted all academics. Participants acknowledged a shift in how academia has been governed, focusing on the needs of the institution, rather than the individual: “I’ve heard from my supervisors how they used to have more freedom. Now, I feel like we’re watched constantly, like all we can do is stuff that benefits the university.” [10]. As such, the early-career women felt positioned to comply with the expectations set by neoliberal academia, and discussed the impact of complying with said practices, where neoliberal practices are normalised, and that academics feel the pressure from the institution, and its members, to control, regulate, and report on their own work:

Um, I think there’s a lot of, um, sometimes pressure. I always like, often feel anxious and tired and exhausted trying to do everything the university expects of me. Also, the accountability and kind of, um, surveillance, I would like to say, of the overarching kind of university and how they kind of expect things, so report on this, answer these questions or that, I want this done yesterday [02].

Experiencing this pressure, the early-career women expressed their compliance was influenced by neoliberal technologies such as surveillance, where they felt their work and way of being was constantly being watched. The difficulty in meeting the standards of academia, versus meeting the individual standards that the women set for themselves when surveilled, was apparent. As such, when complying to the neoliberal norm, the early-career women academics appeared to accept that when being watched in academia, working fast to complete their set tasks, as well as recognising their work may not be their personal best, was enough to comply to the academic standards: “I complete the tasks I’m asked to do. It’s not my best work, but I do the very best that I could in the time that I had, with the pressure I was put under. That’s academia.” [08].

When drawing on the neoliberal/economic discourse to explore the foundations of compliance in academia, the early-career women academics expressed tensions between (1) complying to the prevailing neoliberal standards that work to constitute success and value, compared to (2) engaging in the intellectual work that they believe to be of personal value that signifies success: “It’s a struggle juggle, really, between being viewed as a success by the institution for doing the work that I hate, versus doing the work I love and value that isn’t seen as ‘worthy’ by the university.” [11] and “I love teaching, but that isn’t valued. I hate research with a passion, but that’s what the university wants me to do.” [11]. Being positioned to comply in their role as an academic, the women rationalised the pressure of neoliberal standards by acknowledging that they find enjoyment and love in what they do (regardless of whether they have the freedom to choose what work they want to engage in), which acts to frame these standards and ways of being as acceptable:

…there’s always days and times where everything’s crap and things aren’t working out and your analysis doesn’t work, and your paper gets rejected and then your grant gets rejected, you’re told you can’t do something because you’re not allowed or there’s not enough money, and then something else happens. And you’re just like, “This all sucks.” But at the end of the day, I’ve, I get to work on a topic that I’m interested in with people that I really like. So, while there are the bad things, I think, um, yeah, overall, it’s more, um, a positive thing. It makes it all worth it [12].

As such, framing these ways of being as enjoyable and acceptable further maintains the feeling of choice in these practices. We propose that the perceived voluntary nature and choice of compliance to the normative academic ways of being can make the explored forms of disciplinary power and subjectification all the more insidious, as the early-career women feel that they possess the power and freedom to independently make decisions and engage in academic work. In reality, the academic context can make it difficult for women to have choice and autonomy, as well as being able to make decisions without experiencing negative consequences. The autonomy, freedom, and choice to either comply or challenge the standards appears to be held instead by the dominant group (i.e., white, cis-gendered, heterosexual, able bodied men) within the academic system, which further perpetuates their ability to control how academia is governed. The dominant group construct and enforce the normative conditions, whereas the early-career women express having to comply to said conditions to be able to feel safe and secure in academia. Where tensions emerge is when considering how the academic setting is not safe for early-career women academics. Here, early-career women academics are positioned so that their compliance reinforces an acceptance of the status quo, and an assumption that organisational and structural barriers are tolerable if one simply works hard enough:

If I work hard, put in the hard yards, put my heart and soul into everything, and comply to the standards, I’ll get there one day. No matter what obstacles block my way, I’ll progress. That’s just the academic experience for you [13].

The Strategic Woman

The Strategic Woman subject position depicts an early-career woman academic who advantageously questions the rules and challenges the expectations of higher education. In the data, this can be illustrated through the women finding ways to navigate the academic system, and to challenge the prescribed norms and ways of being. For example, when participants discussed why they wanted to challenge certain norms and ways of being in academia, they drew from a risk discourse in terms of evaluating the potential risk of challenging the way of being. Speaking up and questioning the pre-existing norms can inherently challenge the women’s positioning within academia, which was discursively constructed as a risky practice: “I hate the way that things are, and that makes me want to change the way we do things in academia.” [13] and “It’s a fine line. Do what you need to do to survive, take the risk, take a chance, but make too much of a fuss and then a target is placed on your back.” [05]. These quotes illustrate that the positioning of the early-career women academic can be challenged when the choice is made to question the current academic standards. While the questioning process was acknowledged as difficult, engaging in the risk was viewed by participants as needed, both as a way of surviving academia, and attempting to find their way of experiencing academia without being viewed as a threat to challenging the system. All participants identified that to survive in academia, they had to engage in risk taking behaviour to be able to play the game, which formed their academic identity as a strategic risk taker. Adopting this position requires a consciousness of the rules of the academic game, as well as an acknowledgement of their positioning.

Thus far, when strategically navigating the academic system, it is evident that both The Compliant Woman and The Strategic Woman experience similarities surrounding the discursive constructions of the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ academic. Where the nuance emerges within this subject position is surrounding the operation of ‘good’ and ‘bad’, and the intersection of the ‘good/bad’ academic. First, the early-career women were constructed as ‘good’ academics, by complying to the standards of academia, and the pre-existing conditions, which assist to protect the women’s positioning: “…as an academic, I am held accountable. People watch what I do, as well as the university, they all expect things, so I comply. I report on this, I answer these questions, I follow these rules…” [02] and “I’ve generally fallen under the radar because I do what I’m told, I do my work, and I go home.” [08]. Additionally, early-career women academics were constructed as ‘bad' academics if they engaged in compliance, viewed as directly and indirectly perpetuating practices that were perceived as harmful: “I know it’s a tough position to be in, but if you follow the rules, and aren’t challenging the harmful way that academia manifests for women, then what the hell are you doing here?” [07]. Participants identified an intersection between these constructions and referred to a ‘good/bad’ academic, a woman who works to question the guidelines and standards of academia, has agency and choice when initiating change, but simultaneously engages in risky behaviours that may threaten their position/role:

I see others make suggestions about how things in academia can change. Have I done this? Yes, but no. I mean things need to change, but I’m too scared of the consequences if I challenge the rules too much. Finding the balance is tough [14].

These sentiments illustrate how the participants evaluated the characteristics, risk value, and consequences for challenging the system and questioning the standards of academia. Early-career women academics felt they were damned no matter which construction they occupied, with each identity having its own potential benefits and risks:

We are damned if we do, and damned if we don’t. If I follow the rules to protect myself, I’m good for putting myself first, but I’m seen as a bad academic, and as a bad woman, for not fighting for the cause for all women academics. If I challenge the rules, I might be seen in a good way by some because I’m standing up for my fellow women, but really, I’m an irresponsible idiot because it’s a risky behaviour. I might not be here tomorrow if I’m viewed as too much of a threat. Like what do you do? [15].

As such, these conflicting constructions serve to highlight the distinctions within these discursive constructions, the tensions within women’s academic experiences, as well as illustrate the nuances within how an early-career woman identifies as a ‘good’ and ‘bad’ academic concurrently. This perpetuates the individualistic focus within academia, where academics are pitted against one another in relation to success, progression, and productivity, embedded within neoliberal/economic discourse.

When elaborating on the conditions to be followed, or challenged within academia, the early-career women academics drew on patriarchal and heteronormative discourses. The patriarchal and heteronormative discourses characterise the academic working conditions as a clear setting of normative standards that have been embedded within dominant western culture that works to favour the hegemonic group (i.e., white, cis-gender, heterosexual, able-bodied men), as well as systematically disadvantage other groups based on the shifting of standards over time. Academic patriarchal knowledge systems and ways of being are viewed as gendered, and are constructed and enforced by the hegemonic group:

…in the faculty, you’re getting acculturated by the system into ‘what women do’ of that women’s work. The higher-ups allocate it [the roles], so, you don’t really stop and question it, you just think oh, okay, that’s the role of women in academia [05].

By drawing on and acknowledging the patriarchal and heteronormative discourses evident within academia, the participants express attempting to find new ways to strategically challenge these practices: “…it seems like you need to be ruthless, you need to be competitive. Um, I wouldn’t say you need to squash people under you, but you need to put yourself first. And promote yourself.” [16] and “I have definitely had to be assertive…a lot of it is just about assertiveness and being very direct with people, but also not being rude or dismissive at the same time.” [12]. By strategically challenging these patriarchal, academic practices, participants work to control how they are perceived and constructed in academia. Historically, other individuals and groups have constructed the way of being for women in academia. Participants identify wanting to challenge this to an extent, or at least, within the positions ascribed to them, control how they navigate the prescription to construct a new way of being. This is expressed further by another participant: “I love being able to challenge the rules. Fuck the rules of academia, honestly, there’s no reason it has to be the way that it is.” [14].

In being a strategic early-career woman academic, the primary course of action is to challenge the normative conditions of academia in a manner that is safe and responsible, but simultaneously, viewed as irresponsible and risky. Either way, the strategic early-career woman academic is constructed as an individual who has evaluated the consequences of either construction (i.e., safe/risky and responsible/irresponsible): “You need to be smart and know what will happen if you make certain decisions. You need to be quite strategic. In hindsight, I should have been more strategic. I wasn’t strategic enough.” [17] and “An academic is careful, smart, intuitive. They should know how to navigate the system.” [11]. The participants suggest that when they decide to challenge these normative behaviours and conditions, they are constructed by other academics as being brave, worthy, and placed on a pedestal, but concurrently, they perceive that they are viewed as stupid, irresponsible, and risky. Participants acknowledge these discursive constructions and note that when early-career women challenge and critique pre-existing practices, the brave construction is amplified based on their marginalised position. The consequences of the amplification of braveness when being strategic, is that there is more to lose if the challenging does not work, or the behaviour is questioned by the hegemony:

…if I stand up for myself, and for women, I feel almost placed on a pedestal, I’m seen as a hero, and that makes me feel good. It makes me want to keep fighting the good fight, but if there is no positive outcome to the challenging, I’m just seen as a wuss, someone who spends all their time complaining, and that makes me feel like it [the challenging] just isn’t worth it. So, there’s all that tension to experience along with the everyday things [02].

As such, engaging in such actions can allow for the early-career women academics to be subjectified, which, according to the participants sentiments, could be subjugating and repressive, or potentially enabling and life giving to their academic identity.

Nevertheless, a sense of individual freedom may be had as the strategic early-career women academics are working to engage and navigate academia in their own way. When engaging in this practice, the participants acknowledged feeling a sense of responsibility in having to change the embedded conditions (which they view as outdated and problematic): “I feel like I have a responsibility to make a difference, to answer some important questions, and to change the way that things have been done before. If I can do that, then I’m happy to continue.” [13]. The sentiments here support the notion that the early-career woman academic can work the system to their advantage, to meet the requirements of academia, but simultaneously, to start challenging these rules of higher education. There appears a perceived responsibility of being a woman in academia, to be strategic and provide a voice for other women. Participants drew on both a gendered/heteronormative, and responsibilisation discourse when suggesting tensions between the desire to engage in this practice, compared to the responsibility felt to engage:

Some days, I love being a woman in academia. I feel like I can engage in my work and keep myself out of harm’s way. There is the odd day or two where I can clearly see how my male colleagues have an easier experience compared to me and my female colleagues, and that irritates me. Why does it have to be this way? Seeing that makes me feel like I need to say something about it [02].

Either way, the early-career women academics suggest that providing women with a voice, and being an inspirational role model, can be viewed as complying to the standards by educating women on how to navigate academia, while concurrently being strategic by working with other women to challenge the system.

The early-career women academics felt encouraged to challenge the positions afforded to them in academia, to construct a flexible and strategic subject position within neoliberal academia. For women who work to challenge practices, they can potentially close down dominant practices, or at least, make others question the standards that are embedded within academia: “I love making people question the boundaries in academia. Seeing the light bulb moment of, ‘Yes, I work here but I don’t work here 24 h a day, 7 days a week.” [14]. The early-career women academics also worked to invent new ways of existing through constructing optional rules or ways of being when navigating academia. By playing the game or gaming the system, women can intentionally and consciously breach the setting dominated by the hegemony: “I’m still overworking, and overdoing, I can never say no to anything, but I feel like I am setting my standards.” [02]. While the woman still experiences a sense of over-working and never resting here, she works to govern her power by turning it back actively on the self, engaging in self-governance to set the conditions of when she can work and meet neoliberal requirements. While the power here is turned back on the self, viewed as free and separate from neoliberal academic practices, the working practices here are still problematic, as the early-career woman may feel attached to challenging the conditions and working on her own terms. With the desire to critique and undo some aspects of neoliberalism in academia, this is ultimately enmeshed with the doing of neoliberalism, potentially viewed as pleasurable and necessary, but dangerous. The early-career woman may view the risk and danger as manageable based on her power and agency, which affords her the opportunity to be a strategic woman, but paradoxically, she now becomes the neoliberal subject herself.

The Rebellious Woman

The Rebellious Woman subject position is an early-career woman academic who feels in control of herself, her behaviour, and her destiny, and as such, is positioned to outrightly question and challenge the rules and conditions of higher education. Within the data set, this was illustrated through the early-career women sharing stories of rebelling by not complying to the academic system, displaying agency, and attempting to rewrite the ‘game’ by reconstructing the system, as well as acknowledging how women are evaluated when displaying rebellious behaviours, compared to their male counterparts.

The early-career women drew on two discourses in explaining how women conceptualise their rebellious identity when navigating the conditions of academia. First, drawing from a patriarchal discourse, early-career women who were positioned as rebellious contextualised the conditions of academia and suggested that masculine, patriarchal norms foster forms of gendered inequalities in academia: “Academia. It’s just a man’s world. The way things are run, the system, it’s so unfair to us women.” [10]. The early-career women extended their sentiments by suggesting that a clear, outright challenging of these norms and logic in academia was seen as being rebellious, rather than compliant, where women resisted the problematic academic conditions. Participants drew on a survival discourse when describing these behaviours: “I’m the first one to complain when I’m hard done by. I’ve always got my eye on the prize… I’ll do what I like to get there. That’s how you survive academia.” [01]. Drawing from both a patriarchal, and survival discourse, these quotes illustrate how some early-career women are positioned to challenge the conditions they find problematic to their experience, and their identity. Doing so allows the women to feel a sense of individual freedom and choice, where they attempt to engage in academia, and its responsibilities, in their own way. Some early-career women attempted to find their own ways of working, within the already prescribed requirements and guidelines of academia. While the women noted that this experience was not always successful, they suggested that “having the ability to rebel, and attempting to question things” [17] is important to the rebellious identity, as well as navigating academia, as here, they feel they have agency and autonomy over their decision-making.

For some of the early-career women academics, knowing that the conditions of academia worked to disadvantage them based on their gendered identity influenced their desire to rebel and change the academic way of being. In being a rebellious early-career woman academic, one course of action is to work the academic system to their advantage by being agentic, engaging in resistance, and challenging the rules of higher education: “I’m a new academic. As such, I feel it’s my responsibility to question everything. I feel like I have the ability to do that, so I can thrive in academia.” [09]. Here, the participant expresses how choosing to rebel and challenge the normative way of being positions them to work in ways that create new opportunities and ways of being, rather than simply responding to, or reinforcing the current problematic standard.

Behaving in this manner was suggested by the early-career women to serve their career and educational development, even if the behaviour served as a potential risk. Drawing on a risk discourse, the participants expressed that engaging in resistance was worth the risk: “Isn’t it worth the risk when you know the grass could be greener?” [14] and “I know making a fuss is risky, but if it’s going to benefit me, and my fellow peers, then why not?” [01]. In these quotes, the women appear to have identified and subsequently evaluated the risk whereby the decision to engage in resistance is positioned as more beneficial, compared to the impacts of complying to the already existing standards. While there were perceived risks to challenging the status quo, the early-career women acknowledged how, as academic women, they had a responsibility to improve the way of being for all women alongside their other colleagues and allies. By nodding to the perceived responsibility of having to change the system, the early-career women drew on the discourse of responsibilisation: “It’s my responsibility. It’s the responsibility of women, to be a good inspiration for young girls in particular by showing them how we can enforce change and foster equality.” [11]. The responsibilisation discourse suggests how early-career women perceive their position in academia as engaging in resistance and fostering change. This can reinforce how the early-career women feel in relation to it being their responsibility to potentiate change. Additionally, they may feel responsible for fostering equality for other women academics, potentially neglecting the role of the academic system in engaging in this practice.

When the early-career women engaged in making their own decisions, they were positioned by other academics as the expert of their own experiences and were viewed as knowing what was best within their given context. As such, the participants acknowledged feeling the pressure from others of needing to know how to resist, and how the conditions of academia could be changed. Drawing on an expert discourse, some women felt the pressure to be perceived as the expert of the experiences of all women academics, as well as how they would be framed if their resistance and rebellion was not favoured by others:

It’s all well and good to say that things need changing, and that we should make a fuss, but if it’s not the right way of going about it, there can be consequences. I’ve had female colleagues who are excluded from collaborations and such because they’re viewed as ‘that kind of academic’ [who engages in social change]. As a woman though, I feel like people look at me to know how to change the way things are in academia. I struggle, because how do I know what’s right? [16].

Here, the women suggest the risk in being framed as the expert is not only in challenging the problematic standards of academia, but additionally, in having their suggestions to change the system questioned and evaluated negatively. Some early-career women did suggest though that the risk of questioning the way of being, and being viewed negatively according to this behaviour, outweighed the consequences of having to comply to the problematic standards of academia.

The early-career women academics suggested that engaging in rebellious behaviours and setting their own academic standards were framed as predominantly male or masculine in nature. Rebellious behaviour in academia, such as displaying confidence, dominance, self-promotion, assertiveness, and agency, were identified by the early-career women academics as best illustrated by their male counterparts: “You see the men in the hallways, doing their thing, being accepted, acting so confident, cocky, arrogant, it drives me up the wall, but they can do it. They can actually rebel if they want to.” [17]. Drawing on both a heteronormative, and patriarchal, discourse, the women expressed how male academics are viewed as the dominant hegemonic group, and as such, attempted to act in ways that were viewed as accepted in academia. These ways of being were positioned as conditional based on gender, with the early-career women, for the most part, suggesting that being rebellious and assertive in academia was in violation of female stereotypes: “Do you see the majority of women questioning how things are? No, because it’s not in our nature.” [08]. In attempting to rebel by acting in ways that were prescribed as masculine in nature, the women may encounter a different academic experience compared to their male counterparts. Specifically, the rebellious ways of being were constructed by the academic organisational context where one’s social identity interacts with that context. As such, with women being discouraged to act with agency and dominance, adopting this positioning may result in unintended consequences for the early-career women academics, such as being excluded, ignored, passed over for academic opportunities, and progressing slower than male academics.

In practice, engaging in resistance and rebellion for early-career women academics played a critical role in allowing them to feel as if they could question the way of being, as well as feeling like part of an academic system that historically was never made for them. In response, The Rebellious Woman works to govern her own power and agency by engaging in resistance to be able to fit in and identify as a part of the academic system, as well as be viewed as an academic who makes her own decisions. While some of the early-career woman academics viewed their actions as allowing them to fit in, paradoxically, by engaging in resistance, their behaviours allowed for other academics to position them as outsiders, where they may feel segregated and isolated from others within academia. As such, the following sentiment, drawn from patriarchal and agentic discourses, summarises how the rebellious positioning influenced the participant’s desire to change the system, as well as changing how other academics perceive them:

As women, we’ve never gotten a choice in how we are constructed and represented. It’s kind of just been done for us. That’s why we work to change things. We want to be just as valued as the men. Can’t that be our future? We make suggestions, and then get viewed as troublemakers for not complying. I want to see an academic world where in 20 years, I can be working here, progressing, being successful, and to be viewed on the same level playing field as my male colleagues [02].

When engaging in resistance and rebelling against the system, participants work to resist power and elude knowledge, even if the knowledge tries to penetrate them and the power tries to appropriate them (Foucault 1988). Through this process, the early-career women academics are appropriated, and caught up in a process of both doing and undoing neoliberal/economic discourse, which can lead to them becoming more attached to challenging these practices (which could be risky and painful for them). Participants acknowledged viewing the risk as manageable because they can construct themselves as a rational, choosing individual in control of how they navigate academia: “I don’t care what everyone else is doing. I care about what I’m doing. I need to take the risk and do my own thing. I can make choices, you know, and I can make the choice of how I navigate my role.” [08]. The tension evident in this identity is that by autonomously making decisions regarding the academic experience, engaging in the undoing of neoliberal academic standards is a neoliberal practice in itself. The early-career women may find it difficult to sustain their strategic challenging of embedded conditions, which may lead to an eventual questioning of their purpose, and feelings of disheartenment and demoralisation.

Discussion

Our aim was to explore how early-career women academics conceptualise their academic identities, and our findings reflect three subject positions. First, the women consolidated their academic positioning by following the rules and meeting the expectations of the institution. Compliance reflected obedience, with the women pressured to obey the traditional academic way of being to avoid experiencing negative consequences to their career. Second, the women strategically navigated academia by deciding to either challenge, or comply, to the normative standards, dependent on their evaluation of the context, and the potential consequences of their decision. Third, the women shared stories of resisting the status quo by rebelling, displaying agency, and rewriting the ‘game’ by reconstructing how academia operates. Tensions emerged whereby resistance allowed for other academics to position the women as outsiders, which led them to feel isolated within academia.

Within the early-career stage, it was evident that the women were united in their commitment to developing in their professional careers, yet they acknowledged that being a woman in the academy automatically meant conflicting with the existing, gendered societal, political, and academic norms. The women expressed feeling a need to have to choose and justify their positions—whether this be as researchers, teachers, mentors, mothers, carers, and more broadly, as women—both to themselves, and to other individuals. It was clear through the justification of themselves as not only professionals, but as gendered human beings, that the language and discourses of academia were embedded within their consciousness, as well as for those that they interact with, which adds to the tensions surrounding the exchanges between the women and the academy. Our claims align with Ward and Wolf-Wendel (2016) and Maxwell (2019), who argue that the expectations and experiences of women are gendered, in an environment that is inherently gendered and hierarchical in nature, where the attitudes, policies, practices, and expectations result in tensions in the professional and personal lives of women academics.

The women expressed having to engage in these existing ways of being which were constructed by the dominant group. The construction of hegemonic discourse, Foucault (1972) argued, is what allows privileged and patriarchal ideals, identities, and systems to function. When specific people or groups of individuals control the knowledge that can be obtained and disseminated, oppression can become a possibility for those who extend from the social norm (Staeuble 2006). The dichotomising of individuals who are deemed worthy to provide and add to the knowledge obtained can construct an ‘us versus them’ dynamic (Pomeroy 2016). Brown et al. (2014), McAlpine et al. (2014), and O’Brien and Hapgood (2012) support this, stating that women in the earlier stages of academia struggle to separate the self from available discourses of marginalisation, devaluation, and exclusion, finding themselves in the position of the academic outsider. As such, women face a double bind, which was evident within our findings, they can either choose to follow the rules and position themselves as compliant, or face exclusion by challenging the rules and adopting the outsider position as one who resists. It appears there is collusion with the oppressive structures of academia whereby it coexists with the actions aiming to overcome the system (Bomert and Leinfellner 2017).

It is important to be aware of who has power currently in academia, who does not, and who is recording and surveilling the actions of women academics. Power does not necessarily belong to higher education, or its members, rather, it is dependent on the discourses that manifest in the setting that culturally, historically, and socially are taken as common sense, accepted as truth, and privileged as knowledge (Bomert and Leinfellner 2017). Discourses surrounding how women can identify within academia are intrinsically bound up in power, as they bring certain rights and responsibilities, and open possibilities to act in certain ways of being (Fox 2013). Identities that encapsulated compliance, rebellion, strategy, and survival in our research allowed for discursive constructions of identity to be conceptualised and were pivotal to understanding how early-career women academics experience higher education. As such, we concur with the claim proposed by Foucault (1980) which states that mechanisms of power have always been, and continue to be, invested, utilised, colonised, involuted, transformed, displaced, and extended through the subjection of individuals in institutions. Specifically, we extend the claim to include early-career women academics working in higher education. We propose moving beyond the question of “how does power manifest itself” and ask ourselves by what means is power exercised? What can happen when individuals exert power over others? Further to this, power can be conceptualised not in terms of who possesses it, but as something that circulates and is employed and exercised through networks (Foucault 1982). The individual is an effect of power and is the element of its articulation at the same time, also being its driver, its vehicle (Foucault 1977, 1982).

The exercising of power over the early-career women academics illustrated how particular subjectivities were placed onto the women through their experience, coercing them to meet the expectations of the system, while slowly sacrificing their sense of self, and what was important for them to achieve within the setting. The danger here, which was further explored by Foucault, was not so much that individuals become repressed by the social order, but that they are, in an insidious manner, carefully fabricated into the system with the power existing penetrating their behaviour (Foucault 1977). Power works to become more efficient through the technologies underlying surveillance and observation, and as such, knowledge follows suit, with Foucault arguing that one is always looking for new forms of knowledge in the different ways that power is implemented (Foucault 1977).

Our findings also illuminate the vital role of discourse in the process of identity formation. Historically, the silencing of women’s voices and experiences by patriarchal, gendered, and neoliberal discourses, as well as the representation of women by men as the embodied ‘other’, hinders the recognition of diverse perspectives in academia (Eagly and Miller 2016). The examination of particular roles and identities within our research help us to consider and deconstruct how certain identities are altered by culturally specific and normative expectations. For example, the way that identities are performed makes evident the relationship between gendered roles, identity, and regulatory, disciplinary power (Wintrup 2017), as well as considering the ways in which certain roles are legitimised within the Australian public higher education setting (Blackburn 2017). Being able to expose the ways in which particular roles and identities are reproduced in their performance and positioning has implications for higher education institutions. The reproduction and maintenance of these discourses, which permeate the everyday practices of academics by means of social representations and discursive constructions help to explain how the traditional gendered norms have become embedded in academia over time (Read and Leathwood 2018). Perhaps we can take the interpretations offered within this study to illuminate, in some respect, how social structures are internalised and become part of the self over time (Montero 2011). This claim, and the claim that the subordination of women is a product of power relations, rather than biology, has practical implications (Clegg 2008; Weedon 1997). For example, the issue of gender within academia was considered as an ongoing struggle by the participants; such a struggle where the women questioned whether a resolution would ever be found.

The women academics acknowledged difficulties engaging in systematic and widespread resistance and critique of these hegemonic practices, but simultaneously, acknowledged an overt commitment to critique and resistance as a way of life when navigating academia. The desire to critique the academic system can be difficult, particularly when undoing some of these practices and technologies can be intricately caught up in the doing of neoliberalism, and so with becoming the neoliberal subject (Gill 2010). The difficulty surrounding resistance appeared to relate to how the early-career women academics were still constructing their understanding of the system, and its practices, in relation to how higher education operated. The women questioned how neoliberal practices had become viable and normalised, whereby academics overall felt compelled to control, regulate, and report on their own work, and the work of others. What can be taken to be truth and inevitable in the global episteme of power shaped how the women conducted themselves, and how they shaped their own conduct in academia (Moss-Racusin et al. 2015). The differences between the expectations and values of the academic institutions, and the women academics, contributed to constraining the choices that the women were able to make. Tensions manifested in the early-career women academics’ attempts to meet the expectations of their employers when the values of the women conflicted with the discourses of the academy. For those who do not engage in resistance, the process of compliance and subjugation may not be necessarily reflective of obedience, rather, it is a process where individuals self-regulate their bodies to fit with the demands of the institution (Foucault 1980). The main catalyst for the participants complying and following of the expectations of academia, was in the perpetuation of neoliberal and patriarchal discourses in considering how the higher education system operated. There appears a relation between the forms of truth that have been acknowledged, and the forms of practice by which academics seek to shape the conduct of themselves and others (Parsons and Priola 2013).

Academic practices that are engaged in may be subjugating and repressive, but potentially, also life-giving and enabling (Burke 2020). This is dependent on the discourses and technologies that women academics may not have chosen, but paradoxically, can work to initiate and maintain their agency (Thompson 2015). Neoliberalism, in some respect, has been acknowledged to improve some aspects of higher education (Burke 2020; Connell 2013). It influences all academics and works to facilitate the work completed (Brienza 2016). Engaging in the practices defined by neoliberalism in one’s own way can feel like an autonomous decision. In our research, early-career women academics defined their experience of engaging in the practices their own way as a form of freedom, of challenging the normative way of doing and being. This allows for early-career women academics to take up new discourses, promising to make things better (i.e., as neoliberalism has promised over time), but at a cost to individuals and with many of the so-called improvements too costly in its constitutive effects (Adams et al. 2019). Additionally, what can be problematic here is that the voluntariness of this autonomous practice contradicts its intention and works to perpetuates said problematic conditions. This can make the power behind this neoliberal form of subjectification and practice all the more insidious (Mutereko 2018).

Implications and strengths

Upon reflecting on the findings, and how the early-career women academics conceptualised their many academic identities, implications surrounding a shift in the prototype of what it means to be an early-career academic were noted. We engaged in many discussions with the participants surrounding how their versions of being an early-career academic often conflicted with the expectations of what it meant to be an early-career academic from an institutional perspective. As such, our research illuminated diversity in the perspectives of women academics from the early-career stage in Australian public higher education settings, and how their conceptualisation of academic identities differed based on both personal and professional factors, time, career stage, and the broader academic and personal context. Theoretically, our research builds on the understanding of what it means to be an academic, whereby we propose the literature base, as well as higher education institutions, can frame their understanding of identity to be more inclusive of multiple identities or ways of being an early-career academic, rather than the perpetuation of the homogenous, ideal academic, which has permeated the women’s ways of being and doing thus far.

Considering this reconstruction and conceptualisation of identities over time for early-career women can assist in a theoretical understanding of the construct, but additionally, build on more practical and applied ways of understanding how early-career women experience academia (Philipsen et al. 2017). Being able to build on how early-career women conceptualise their academic identities has allowed for a recognition of identity as ongoing and fluid, affected by one’s lived experiences, both professional and personal, illustrating an interplay of dynamics specific to the women’s context. As such, the academic identity conceptualisation should be thought of as an ongoing process of development (Pick et al. 2017). Extending on the acknowledgement of a shift in how academic identities are conceptualised for early-career women in academia, our research is the first to propose specific subject positions in relation to how early-career women academics are positioned in particular ways, to perform particular roles, which has implications for the ways of being and doing that they are able to occupy. Thus far, these subject positions have not yet been explored in terms of women’s academic identities and experiences in Australian public higher education, and as such, provides a basis for understanding some of the identities that emerge at the early-career stage. In drawing on the Foucauldian approach, our research has been able to acknowledge the social, historical, and political influences that have emerged over time to impact early-career women academics, as well as illuminating the subjectivities and positionings that are made available to women at this career stage.

Our research also provides further findings to assist in understanding how and why early-career women in academia experience conflict in their academic identity conceptualisation. Building on this understanding, we have acknowledged not only the different subjectivities that are available to women at the early-career stage, but also, extending on this, an exploration of how early-career women can navigate and overcome the subjectivities that are placed on them, to assist in being able to conceptualise and explore new ways of being and doing in academia. We propose that fully considering how new ways of being and doing can be conceptualised in academia must go beyond the formal identification of an academic under the roles of research, service, and teaching, to extend on this understanding, to explore, and recognise, the equally important influence of discipline, career stage, interpersonal connections and relationships, familial and caring responsibilities, and individual characteristics on women’s academic identities (McKay and Monk 2017).

Additionally, the use of the Foucauldian perspective has illuminated the vital role of discourse in the process of academic identity formation, demonstrating how particular identities and discursive representations frame the ways that early-career women experience and speak about themselves. In considering and deconstructing these identities, we have acknowledged how they can be altered by the academic culture, as well as the normative standards and expectations of higher education that the early-career women have shared with us through their experiences. A dedication to the critical, Foucauldian perspective has made evident the relationship between subjectivities, identities, power, knowledge, discourse, as well as how certain roles are legitimised in academia (Burr 2015; Foucault 1972).

Limitations and future research directions

There are limits to the transferability of our research findings beyond the Australian public higher education context. Our findings are only representative for early-career women academics within STEMM fields in such an academic context. With limits to the transferability of the findings, caution is needed when applying these findings to different contexts (Creswell 2013; Lincoln and Guba 1985). In aligning with the recognition that our study findings are bound within an understanding of STEMM for early-career women within the Australian public higher education context, future research should explore how academic identities are conceptualised and constructed in education systems within other socio-cultural contexts. Comparative studies with other faculties, as well as other geographical and cultural contexts, are needed. Additionally, women’s identity conceptualisations in private higher education settings, both in Australia, and worldwide, would be useful, to explore whether the dynamics differ in relation to context. Overall, the exploration of identity, and its associated subject positions, outside of the current socio-cultural context is important, as it can help to identify the differing ways of being, experiences, needs, and views of individuals from different education systems and socio-cultural contexts.

Our research project focused on how early-career women academics conceptualise their academic identities within STEMM in Australian public higher education, excluding other academics (i.e., males and gender-diverse academics) within these fields. Many of the participants suggested how exploring a male perspective on the topic of not only academic identities, but how they feel women are positioned to navigate academia, would be useful. As such, we propose that future research could endeavour to explore (1) how men conceptualise their academic identities, (2) how they perceive gender to be embedded within the academic setting, and (3) how they perceive their positioning and the ability to navigate academia, compared to other academics. Additionally, with our recommendations suggesting the renegotiation of identities and subjectivities for all academics to thrive within the system, obtaining the perspectives of all academics in both research, and the institutions themselves, at all career stages is important. As such, we propose that future research could explore academic experiences and identities of middle- and later-career women academics in STEMM.

Conclusion

The findings of the research make a substantial contribution to the literature by suggesting subjectivities that emerged from discourses evident in early-career women’s academic experiences, the influence of privileged forms of power and knowledge on the discourses, constructions, and ways of being embedded in academia, as well as exploring how this influences the conceptualisation of academic identities for early-career women academics. Our findings illustrated that regardless of the perception of autonomy and agency in academia, early-career women academics felt damned in how they experienced, engaged with, and identified within, the academic setting. Efforts to comply, strategise, or rebel and resist, resulted in subjectivities that were placed onto the women; for example, that to progress in academia, one must accept the way that things are to avoid negative consequences surrounding safety, known risks, (fear of) punishment, as well as structural and cultural violence. Ultimately, it appears that early-career women who have challenged the traditional way of being now must work harder to prove themselves as a part of a setting which historically has never operated to accept them, based on the embeddedness of patriarchal and gendered ideologies, as well as structural and contextual forms of violence. While most academics work in a system which dehumanises them and views them as neoliberal subjects, early-career women academics experience further complexities based on their gendered identity. Irrespective of positionality, early-career women academics are surveilled, which dictates how they interact within the academic setting, and provides little opportunity to define who they are as an academic. The research findings underpin the previously identified need to reconceptualise what it means to be an early-career woman academic, but extends on this, and suggests adopting a transformative, rather than reformative, perspective, to ensure that the traditional hierarchies and ways of being that currently exist to disadvantage women are not retained. By doing so, the discourses, practices, and ways of being which are currently legitimised can be extended upon and transformed by going beyond observing differences to intervene and promote equity and transformational, or second-order, change for all academics within STEMM, and Australian higher education more broadly.